IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120022308 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his undiagnosed Vietnam combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) impaired his ability to serve; however, he has become a role model for his community and society.  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue suffering from the adverse consequences of a UOTHC discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, a list of his accomplishments, four letters of support, and various certificates of appreciation and achievement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120005491, on 25 September 2012.

2.  The applicant has provided documents related to his post-service achievements and a brief history of the events that led to his misconduct.  This is new evidence that warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  After having had prior service in the Regular Army, the applicant again enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 September 1976.  He last reenlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 1985.

4.  A review of the applicant’s records show:

   a.  he served in Okinawa from February to May 1966 (3 months) and in Vietnam from May 1966 to March 1967 (10 months);
   
   b.  the highest rank he attained was sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7;
   
   c.  he received numerous letters of appreciation/commendation, certificates of achievement, and awards for exemplary performance while serving as a recruiter;

   d.  on 27 December 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7-8 December 1985 and from 9-10 December 1985;

   e.  he was convicted by a summary court martial on 1 February 1988 for uttering worthless checks and being AWOL;

   f.  he was barred from reenlistment on 12 February 1988;
   
   g.  on 21 June 1988, he was convicted by a special court-martial of the wrongful use of cocaine; and

   h.  he was confined by civil authorities in Leesville, LA from 10-22 May 1988 and again on 10 June 1988 for presenting worthless checks.

5.  On 23 August 1988, the applicant's company commander initiated administrative separation action to discharge him due to the above court-martial actions and his civil convictions.

6.  His medical records were not available for review; however, as part of his separation processing the applicant received a mental status evaluation on 
1 September 1988.  The Behavior Health official stated the applicant's brief mental status evaluation did not suggest the presence of a psychotic thought process or major affective disorder.  Formal psychological evaluation was not indicated at the time and the applicant was cleared for administrative actions as deemed appropriate by his command. 

7.  On 24 October 1988, the approval authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12, for a civil court conviction and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge.  He was discharged on 31 January 1989.

8.  In a self-authored statement, he listed his many achievements and briefly addressed the reason for his misconduct.  He stated that he was a top-notch SFC, 11-year recruiter, and he was dedicated to the Army but not his family, which resulted in his spouse divorcing him for another Soldier.  He contends that his conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency were outstanding and he received numerous awards and decorations.  During this devastating period of his life his fellow senior enlisted Soldiers introduced him to their pain killers, alcohol, and drugs.  Lastly, he believes clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a UOTHC discharge.

9.  In addition, he provided several certificates that show his post-service achievements and letters of support.  These letters state the applicant is an advocate for children, an active volunteer with the Disabled American Veterans organization, a man of excellent character and integrity, and a compassionate and caring individual who has served as a public official in Mobile, Alabama for 24 years and a pastor for 32 years.

10.  There is no evidence in the available record to show he suffered from PTSD or displayed symptoms related to any mental health disorder.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A UOTHC discharge is normally the appropriate characterization of service for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct the issuance of a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable 

characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  He contends in his statement that, in effect, that his misconduct was caused by his undiagnosed PTSD, his devastating divorce, and the pain killers/drugs, and alcohol that he engaged in with fellow Soldiers.  

3.  The evidence of record shows that he received a mental health evaluation prior to discharge which did not suggest the presence of psychotic thought process or major affective disorder.  Further, there is no indication that he sought help from his chain of command in regard to his family problems or substance abuse or that he self-referred for substance abuse.  His service record shows a clear pattern of misconduct which included two court-martial convictions, two civil confinements, and a history of being AWOL and issuing worthless checks.  It is unfortunate that such a promising career was ended as a result of misconduct; however, there is no evidence that would attribute his misconduct to PTSD.

4.  The applicant’s chain of command processed him for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14, Army Regulation 635-200, based on the above misconduct.  His UOTHC discharge was administratively correct and conformed with the applicable regulations.

5.  The applicant's post-service achievements are noteworthy; however, these are insufficient to overcome his record of indiscipline.  His misconduct does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ___x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120005491, dated 25 September 2012.




      _______ _   _x______   ___
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022308



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022308



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1